As you say, one reason for this would be to protect the
bank's investors from taking losses. Many of the investors could well be consumers
since, for example, pension funds often are big investors in various enterprises). If
the banks lose value, individual investors could be
hurt.
Another reason why we might want to prevent judges
from doing this is to protect all the people who have followed the rules (and will do so
in the future) from paying for the mistakes of others. If banks are forced by a judge
to take less money than they are due, they may be hurt financially. In order to recoup
their losses, they may have to charge higher interest rates to future buyers. They may
also be less likely to lend for fear of being ordered to take "haircuts" by judges.
This would mean that having judges help people who are having trouble with their
mortgages might hurt other people who want mortgages in the
future.
No comments:
Post a Comment